Rambling

Bangkok Pundit has made a feature of The Economist articles, but overall I think Crispin's piece is more on the money (despite some nitpicking regarding the voting number discrepancies being used as a way to try to undermine the general thrust of his piece).

I also think Fonzi is wrong when he agrees with The Economist that this mess is all about the monarchy - they are certainly a factor, but Thaksin is still the main cause of the disruption - if only he had moderated his actions (or been moderated by those around him), he would still be in power.

Whilst most mainstream reports portay the dispute as between 2 sides 'reds' and yellows', pro and anti- Thaksin, I think it is more than that and there are 4 main groups, as follows:

YELLOW 'side' is split into 2 major factions:

(a) OLD ORDER: Established business and military elites who want to keep their disproportionate share of the pie (Thaksin was eating into it for himself, his cronies and to a lesser extent, the poor)

(b) IDEALISTIC: Lower/Middle class, educated and moralistic people who cannot stand Thaksin's greedy, tax dodging, authoritarian personality flaws which in most western countries would make him unelectable, but are repeatedly overlooked by the electoral masses

RED 'side' is also split into 2 main factions:

(c) ANTI MONARCHISTS - they have been on the losing side since the 1970's and see Thaksin as a way to start winning some battles in the long running war

(d) DEMOCRACY: Activists, rural poor, taxi drivers etc - includes people who choose to overlook Thaksins flaws and those who love Thaksin simply because he was the first one to give something back


That's still a simplification, because each group has its own 'warlords' using the other members as cannon fodder.


Personally I have sympathy for groups (b), (c) and (d).

I think the IDEALISTIC and DEMOCRACY groups are ideologically not that far apart - they just need to recognize and accept the other side's point of view.
If the DEMOCRACY group dropped Thaksin, then the IDEALISTIC group would probably disband.

That would leave the battle to ANTI MONARCHISTS and the OLD ELITE - the simple solution for this battle is for the palace to change it's ways, dismantle the patronage system and rein in the old elite, in which case all but the hard core anti-monarchists would disappear.

As an added bonus, succession would no longer be such a big issue if the palace changed it's ways.

That's my 2 cents worth from my poor, idealistic perspective - but I'm a farang so I don't understand Thailand anyway!

Why this blog is inactive

I was previously a very regular commentator at New Mandala and Bangkok Pundit (as Hobby) from 2007 to about Sept 2008, but lately have been trying to hold back on commentating on Thai politics because I am not Thai, and I think the current problems need to be solved by Thai's, not foreigners.

(also I do not live in Thailand and think it better to leave the commentating to those who are more directly affected).

I mainly set up this blog to keep track of some of the better posts I saw on those other blogs, then I started to try to offer solutions to the crisis, but now I try not to comment on Thai politics (as outlined above) - so this blog is unlikely to be very active.

I would recommend all people interested in Thai politics to read Paul Handley's 'The King Never Smiles' for background, together with the works of Pasuk & Baker, and Duncan McCargo, on Thaksin.

Hobby

Goodbye & Good Luck

I've decided to stop commentating on Thai politics.

To the regulars, particularly those over at New Mandala & Bangkok Pundit: - thanks for the entertainment over the last 2 years.

In closing, I will refrain from repeating why I think Thaksin is no longer the right person to play a leading role in Thai politics, and instead would like to thank him and TRT for making it hard for future politicians to ignore the plight of the poor masses.

Best wishes to all.

Samak gone, now it's Somchai's turn

Let's continue to play this game, and assume that PPP is a political party with the main aim of governing for the benefit of the country and it's people.

Samak is gone - even though the cooking show trigger for his demise was nonsensical, I wont be shedding a tear for him - had his chances to be reasonable, he wasn't, so I say good riddance!

Now Somchai steps up to the plate - let's hope the real Somchai has some substance, and he will not just be the 'brother in law' or the 'husband'.

PPP still have the opportunity to govern, a coup is very unlikely, and they still have the electoral majority card up their sleeve - The ball is in their court - the choice they have is whether to govern for the people, or govern for Thaksin.

The PAD can agitate as much as they like, but it wont come to anything unless the government provides a trigger.

For Thaksin it was the tax free Shin corp sale - Somchai (or his successor) merely continuing pro-poor policies would not provide such a trigger, nor would consultative constitutional amendments.

If they steer clear of interfering in the Thaksin cases, and are seen to be moderately competent in dealing with issues as they arise, it will be very difficult for 'elites' or 'third forces' to engineer their downfall.

It's too early to tell whether Somchai will be a success - his conciliatory tone is a welcome change to Samak's bluster, but the message is mixed if reports of a delegation sent to London to get Thaksin's tick of approval are true.

Will Thaksin be advising his brother in law that revocation of the diplomatic passports would be a good move?

Just like with Samak, I'm hopeful that Somchai is the right man for Thailand at this point in time, and am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, until his actions prove otherwise.

Censorship at New Mandala ???

Udpate:
Some of my comments make it through, and others don't - it's certainly an incentive to keep comments short so that not too much time is invested, just in case they don't get through.
Anyway, by now I think it's clear which sides Andrew, Nich and the regular contributors are on - I remain in the 'song mai ow' camp and would like to see whoever is in power governing for the good of the country and it's people, not just for it's cronies.
I know I'm too idealistic, and should just accept that a select few will always pull the strings, and whichever side throws out a few more scraps must be the 'democratic' one.
I used to think democracy could do better than that.

Original Post:
It looks like the owners of the New Mandala blog have come up with a way to 'justify' the blocking of those commentators who have opposing views to theirs.

My interpretation of the new commentating criteria is that comments that disagree with the following basic theme will not be accepted:

'Thaksin/TRT/PPP elected => therefore is good'

My posts no longer seem to get through - It was fun while it lasted, and I don't blame them for trying to stop us 'non academics' from taking pot shots at them.

What all the fuss is about

That PPP is the Thaksin nominee party is not in doubt, however the situation is further complicated because Sondhi L also exhibits most of the characteristics of a 'toxic leader'.

A new people's constitution and Song Mai Ow still makes the most sense to me.

The following is a good summary of why the PAD still exists, and why many normally reasonable people are doing the unreasonable:

It was posted by 'karmablues' over at New Mandala

"1. Prof McCargo: “Thaksin set about systematically to dismantle the political networks loyal to Prem in a wide range of sectors, aiming to replace them with his own supporters, associates and relatives. Thaksin was seeking to subvert network monarchy, and to replace it with a political economy network of the kind described by Cartier Bresson (1997): a network based on insider dealing and structural corruption. …. demonstrating his determination to create a new super-network, centered entirely on himself, and characterized by a more hierarchical structure.”

2. Prof McCargo: “The core struggle of the 1990s was one between conservatives associated with the military and bureaucracy, and liberal reformers [notably Prawase and Anand] seeking to strengthen civil society and political institutions [which the liberal reformists eventually won resulting in the 1997 people's constitution]. But Thaksin, the policeman turned tycoon turned prime minister, was playing according to completely different rules and ideas , favouring a toxic mode of leadership which left little space for rival players (Lipman-Blumen 2005).”

3. Let me add from wikipedia, what is said about Prof. Lipman-Blumen’s concept of a toxic leader: “For Lipman-Blumen “toxic leadership” designates an extremely bad sort of leader. Toxic leadership is not about incompetence, lack of foresight, or run-of-the-mill mismanagement, rather leaders as predatory sociopaths ….these are the people for whom no malevolent act is out of bounds in the name of gaining and holding power ; who sell access to the highest bidders; who pursue policies that abjectly favor the investment class while maintaining a populist rhetoric…” Toxic leaders first charm and play on the people’s insecurities and self-esteem, but then manipulate, mistreat, undermine, and ultimately leave their followers worse off than when they found them.

So, are we talking about reform of the monarchy by “toxic leader” Thaksin through the creation of his “super-network” which was “based on insider trading and structural corruption”, “centered entirely” on the toxic leader himself and “characterized by a more hierarchical structure”? And this toxic reform project’s effect on Thailand’s democracy? Baker and Pasuk concluded in no uncertain terms that: “Thaksin Shinawatra has rolled back a quarter century of democratic development.”

Shoot me down in flames (please!)

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE

Why is no one else talking about working towards a new 'peoples' constitution as a way to resolve the crisis?

The the junta imposed their own constitution (to overcome perceived and actual deficiencies of the 1997 version), now the PPP want to impose their own amendments.

If the government truly wanted to move forward (instead of just victory), they would be trying to open up the constitution amendments to a consultative process.

Let the political parties have their say, all the pressure groups (including the PAD) can make submissions, and if consensus cannot be reached on some contentious items, let the people decide via a referendum.

The government should not give in to the PAD, but they also have a responsibility to try to move the country forward.

By agreeing to such a process the government would not be giving in to mob rule, but they would be giving the PAD an incentive to go home (and if they don't go the government gets sufficient justification to make them go).

They would also be helping to rebuild the country, and making it much harder for future coups & more imposed constitutions.
(and at the end of the day they just might get the constitution they want and need, anyway)


UPDATE 2:
Samak stood down over Cooking Show.

A sensible Samak/PPP/Coalition (wishful thinking!) would use this constitutional court case as an example of why the 2007 constitution is flawed.

They could then open up the constitution amendment process to consultation as a way of diffusing the current standoff.

For all those supporting Samaks re-appointment, please consider what it says about PPP and it’s coalition partners if they reappoint as PM a person who has been stood down in these circumstances (including possible covering up evidence?) and such person is also subject to further court actions.

Are they worried people will run out of reasons to protest against them?

UPDATE 1:
Occasional Poster over at Bangkok Pundit's site provides a good summary of the situation:
"I can only conclude that violence is what both sides want in a vicious power struggle to totally control Thailand inc. for their own utterly personal ends while throwing around some vague notions of democracy that none of them fully support."